Numbers and Free Will (extra footage) - Numberphile 

I love this guy a lot. He has a lot of the same beliefs as me, but the main thing I like about him, is that he is not trying to impose his thoughts on others, but tries to explain his views and hoping that it will make others think about the subject.

I’m always impressed by Brady’s questions. Really just a solid voice of common sense

my computer just said through its speakers "i'm not a computer! i'm human!" i laughed so damned hard. its like the hard drive grew sentience because of a youtube video.

"I am not a computer. I am human." Exactly what a computer would say if it wanted us to think it was human...

The map is not the same as the territory. It all boils down to this. What we perceive as reality is not the same as what reality is. We may build models and theories, and use them with great success to predict or explain things, but reality can't be reduced to those models and theories. It is by essence beyond grasp and comprehension, and we may only access some projection of it that makes sense to us.

See a mathematician talking about the limitations of mathematics in human reality is really exciting. The faith in rationality and Goedel's formulation are very good points.

What a computer does is not just a representation of what a human does. The computer actually does the same types of things that a human does. It's not just a representation, like numbers for a vector. You cannot guarantee that you are not a machine.

"i know from my own experience, and i cannot fool myself" yeah.... about that....

I think he makes complete sense with the mathematical things, that we may be too complex to only exist in zeros and ones and more information to give context to the numbers in different ways may be needed, but I'm not really with him on the part about love and believing or not that you're a machine... we evolved to this point with the sole purpose of surviving, love and all that makes perfect sense within evolution. Then, disregarding quantum mechanics because it's not relevant in this issue, every state of every particle and all the energy in you can be put into numbers or more generally, maths. I agree with you that it seems religious to regard ourselves as something special in the universe or even earth. We know exactly where we came from and that the universe basically spat us out, no matter how beautiful we are (from our perspective) and it seems like the prof is implying we are something more, which, as he acknowledges, is based on absolutely nothing but personal "experience" or maybe even the want to believe. He wants to try and nudge people in the right direction, but to me it seems as if that direction leads nowhere. Anyways, loved his points about the importance of context and required added value in numbers/maths!

waiting eagerly to see next numberphile vid with this guy about Godel's incompleteness theorem...never wrapped my head around that one when i tried...'coz itz really interesting....

There are two outcomes. Either: A) A human being, mind, brain and all can be represented/simulated by mathematical systems and/or a hypothetical computer. Even if it cannot be built, it's still possible. Or: B) Belief in the supernatural. Belief in the soul. The reason is: all of the processes within a human and within the mind are simply the interactions of particles; these particles can be simulated with mathematical laws. Even the probabilistic subatomic (quantum) interactions can be simulated with the right statistical approach. By saying that we are not machines this means you're saying there's some process special to humans which is beyond the realm of science and inquiry. Obviously simple things (like mice or even single-celled organisms or a virus) can be simulated. Is he suggesting that there was a specific point in history when humans gained souls? Consciousness is an illusion.. a simulated consciousness (or a computer that convincingly pretends to be conscious) is identical to consciousness, hence consciousness is nothing more than an extension lead plugged into itself.

Is this similar to the story about the girl who lived all her life wearing a pair of glasses that removes all the color from her view. Sort of like a grayscale filter. All her life she has never seen color. She has access to a computer and knows that color exists. She knows the light frequencies, the connotations people have with certain colors, that red/orange has a warm feeling and blue has a cold feeling. She knows EVERYTHING there is to know about colors down to the littlest of detail. But still when she takes off those glasses and sees the clear blue sky for the first time she'll have learned something. Something that she could never have learned without seeing it herself. She will have learned what the colors look like. Perhaps humans are like that. There is no adequate description that perfectly describes humans in such a way that they can ever be modeled precisely. There is something that we can't know about them unless we are that person or maybe even to see that person. That all the knowledge about who I am is divided over different people. Perhaps this missing piece comes from the first hand experience of being that person. No one can ever describe me in full, because only I have that knowledge of certain aspects of myself and that knowledge cannot be described on paper it needs to be experienced. And through that knowledge I see other people differently. So I know stuff about others that they don't know about themselves because they don't have that knowledge/experience of being me. So to each person everyone is just a projection onto their limited knowledge and it is impossible to ever fully comprehend a person unless you see them through the eyes of every possible human being. Impossible for us and thus that we might be able to be represented by machines, but we won't know for sure and every machine ever built, no matter how close the resemblances are won;t ever be a perfect representation of the person. I like this idea. I'll stick with it for now. I like not being a math equation, but a human being instead :)

So his ultimate point is just because we can put numbers (which we invented) to something doesn't mean it itself is a number. Very interesting idea, because it implies just because we can witness something and put numbers to it doesn't mean they are what we are trying to describe. Because the numbers are just like calling Blue Blue, we could very much call Blue Pancakes and that doesn't mean either is right. Our observations and calculations are just how we describe reality, thus the reality isn't really those calculations or observations. Thus a human which we can describe, through what we know, as numbers isn't really numbers or algorithms because there is more to what we can see and measure. And by that I mean what we see and measure is not by what it truly is, but what we label it thus it's all speculative in some way. Like intelligence, we have no idea what it is but we can measure what we think it may be, but we don't really know so how can we put a numerical value on it when it in itself isn't a number, IE it's all relative. And to put blind faith in the fact our numbering system, which we created, can describe things we didn't is illogical and at the same time disproving that numbers can describe everything by that very belief being unmeasurable. Lots of food for thought in this video.

The concept of "free will" is somewhat strange. I do believe that eg a person will always act the same way in a given situation if nothing is changed. The "free will" just indicates that everyone could act differently from each other. But they themselves would never "choose" a different option, since they can't. A computer will also do the same, I don't see the difference there. However, I also do believe that a human can never create some perfect machine, since as an imperfect being we can't know how to do that. In the same way, we can't know how to make a machine that creates a perfect machine. We can only have them do certain things better than us. To the whole emotions thing I just say there are hormones and stuff, so of course it can be explained logically. You can even go that way and program influences of "emotional states" into a machine. Why would that be less real? At least for the machine it is, as much as yours is to you... Boolean love = true; ;P

absolutely love Ed, best guest on numberphile

Those are some very very good and challenging questions Brady. I thoroughly enjoyed this video.

You all need to understand just how humble this guy is... Your reality is an abstraction made by your senses. Your reality is not absolute, no matter how well you test it.

I would love to have a conversation with this man, damn those arguments, the wisdow that he employs, such beauty...

the auto eng-sub at 3:11 though......

I like to be challenged, but I don't feel challenged only confused. If we're not a machine, what are we?

The issue of "agreeing on a basis" is not nearly as simple as describing something within that basis. The fundamental issue is that while we may have influence over the data in the "basis" in which we exist, we do not choose our "basis", and all of scientific endeavor is just one modern way of attempting to understand, measure, and describe our "basis". What he's pointing out, however, is that if you give a description and a full understanding of the basis, you could make a copy. But an identical copy is not the same vector, the original vector exists on that one piece of paper and you can make ANOTHER ONE just like it, through these algebraic means. This, and the original video, is the greatest numberphile video of all time.

Testimony of 'knowing' a truth can never be taken seriously as knowledge or truth when that is all that it has going for it.

You aren't a machine because you have personal experience. What makes you think machines can't have personal experience?

This is one of the most profound videos I've watched. Great content, great line of thinking

"I'm not a philosopher, but...." He's clearly not a trained philosopher, but he's attempting to confront philosophical questions using his intuition and subjecting experience. This is just as bad as Kurzweil using his confidence from his expertise in one scientific pursuit to attempt to make conjectures about the future.

It's the distinction between describing something, which we are constantly improving on, and experiencing something. He's making the claim that that vector experience (or existence) doesn't depend on its definition. It exists and we have agreed ways of perceiving it. A machine based on our system of logic is only as powerful as our ability to define and describe, and its processing isn't capable of incorporating an experience. So that is the quintessential privilege of being conscious and separates us from pure mathematics.

I'm positively salivating at the prospect of a video about Gödel with Prof. Frenkel.

The white board in the background is a fantastic addition to the show. Some of the finest aspects of known reality in quantum mechanics demonstrate this lack of certainty that we notice in the uncertainty principle in the way very small things represent themselves to our methods of perceiving them. The universe is full of uncertainty and mathematics is not able to escape that fact. This brings to mind the debate whether mathematics is created in the human mind or discovered by it. The most true answer that I have found is that both are true simultaneously.

"Im not a computer" thats just what a computer would say...

That last part about rationality.. I agree with it SO MUCH. I'm always thinking about these kind of things all the time, a lot of people think they're rational and they don't understand that that what makes them irrational.

with an infinite amount of numbers you could do the vector justice by describing it in every possible base

The proper answer to the "perfect reproduction" question for me is a lot simpler - you can't really reproduce a vector, you really just reproduce its representation, but the vector itself stays one and the same. And this is for me the main parallel between math and conscious being, both are what metaphysics calls - "thing in itself". There is a separation between this thing in itself and the idea of it, which was discovered by Kant. You can reproduce the idea, but the actual "thing" behind it, is beyond any representation. Yes, maybe Edward Frenkel is not quite educated in this field, but this was actually proven long time ago by Kant/Schopenhauer. People that think themselves intelligent and don't get it, should really reconsider their thinking/assumption... Probably they are just AI intelligent :)...

He has a really strong aversion for the word machine. It is a poor argument that If we can be simulated with numbers, then we are nothing but machines. The argument is the same as "if diamond is made or carbon, it is as cheap as coal" or "if humans are evolved from monkeys, then humans are nothing but animals." Let me re-iterate my point with an example with numbers. Take the number 0, it is really special. If we add a number with 0, we know the result is the number that we are adding with. If we multiply 0, we know the result is 0. If we use 0 as the exponent with a nonzero base, we know the result is 1. We cannot argue that just because 0 is so special, it should not even be considered a number. That would be crazy talk.

This guy seems so natural, that even if all humans were computers, he'd still be be human. Idk how to explain what I mean.

I really liked this pair of videos, very uplifting subject matter. Of course I enjoy math, but I also believe there's more to the world than just it.

while listening to prof Frenkel's arguments few questions just occurred to me: 1- do elementary particles (electrons, quarks, etc) know (or know about) the equations quantum mechanics? 2- do these equations describe elementary particles fairly accurately? 3- what would an electron tell you if you accused it of following Dirac's equation when it's alone? 4- why would someone think that he/she is more real than an electron? my personal answers are: 1- no 2- yes 3- WHO THE FUCK IS DIRAC 4- no clue

Firstly, there's an issue even with the numbers themselves: most of them are uncomputable. So absolutely most of the configurations we have IRL must be not precisely representable (unless there are no uncomputable numbers implementations), especially taking Heisenberg uncertainty into account. But would approximations do the job? Is human mind so chaotic (in math sense), that its model wouldn't tolerate approximations? I doubt so, to me it looks more like a self-balancing system with a lot of negative feedback loops which compensate noise and randomness of the reality to achieve a particular state funtion based upon its state function evolution and external input. Should we care about nearly random fluctuations in the model if they happen in the original after all? Can a model and its original be considered equal (not identical)? Secondly, what's the definition of a machine Edward Frenkel is operating by?

But we _are_ following a formula! Whether or not you enjoy it has nothing to do with that! What you don't seem to understand is that your perception is just neurons firing in a specific pattern. Everything you perceive comes down to neurons firing or not firing. You enjoy your food? That's because specific smell and taste receptors fire, which leads to a chemical reaction (that we haven't properly studied yet), which leads to dopamine, and serotonin, and other neurotransmitters being released, which then leads to other neurons firing which make you feel pleasure. And you know what? That's very similar to a computer. And you may say "a computer can't "feel" anything", but that's just because they're pretty dumb for now. Can a worm or a plant feel anything? Mehhh, if you say "yes" you're stretching the definition of it. A lot. And the only difference between worms and humans is complexity. Evolution taught us that much. And also, you claim that we can't explain love, or faith, or whatever other emotions. I would argue that we can. We have _proven_ that having a chemical imbalance alters your state of mind, and your emotions. We have _proven_ that someone's personality can change if their brain structure changes. We have all but proven that emotions and sentiment are simply a construct of our brains. I'm not just claiming that I am a computer; I am claiming that you are a computer. It's a hard pill to swallow, but just like something as wonderful as a rainbow can be described using math, without removing any of the properties that make it beautiful, so too can the human mind be explained through mathematical structures. After all, if you trace our evolution back far enough, humans come from primate ancestors which come from some original mammalian species which came from fish which came, at some point, from bacteria. And those first species of bacteria came from some RNA or DNA strand that somehow found the resources to duplicate itself, and then found themselves protected by a bubble of oil. Life is a giant chemical reaction.

Really really powerful, makes you think. What people doesn't notice is that what computers are doing right now when we talk about simulations of brains are nothing but that, simulations. We give certain parameters and the computer process them logically through boolean logic and gives an answer. Should I, little mice, go right or left to get fastest to the cheese? If I go right I'll spent 3 minutes, if I go left 2, is 2 < 3 yes, so I go left. That is, more or less, in a very simple way, what computers do. But a mice is not only boolean truths. Why do they die in traps for example? I know it's not a powerfull argomentation, but think about it. If they were boolean entities they would not die in such ways. Logic, which is the real basis of computers and will forever be ( since even quantum computers are based on 0 and 1, they are faster, but they still need a true or false statement), cannot fully be a living entity. It can only simulate life, in a very "simple" level. But without logic failures human being wouldn't had come so far so, well, to me the topic is somehow closed.

The last video was great, that extra footage just doesn't make sense. Science (and math) are just a way to describe the world based in human observation/thoughts. When people say "humans are machines", they are not saying we are like them in all ways, they are just saying that if you analyze a human fully, you could understand it and get to know in which base they make decisions and stuff... That's great.

This mathematician is very insightful. Noam Chomsky has also explained on a video why the human mind will never be represented on a computer, a device which ultimately adds and subtracts 1s and 0s. The mind's properties, say consciousness, cannot even be defined or described so how could any one know whether a human mind will ever emerge from a super duper compatible no matter how powerful. What is love, as the good mathematician asks, what is anger or any emotion. The mind on a computer? So naïve.

Hi professor I think It's great you, as a profesional, address maths limitation as well. Thanks. I personally fell not all is math, but I keep on seeing this physisist on Discovery channel that claims the universe is soully math. As a human I love math as an egineering tool, but how do he know every thing is math? The cirkel don't know the relation between its diameter and its surcomfrece is a trancedential number ;-) So, there is things in nature that will never fit exactly in to math, but as an engineer a good aproximation will do :- )

Another argument for the case might be (and I don't know why mathematicians and computer scientists tend not to mention it) the stochastic nature of a biological system (such as a human being). While if you knew all the ingredients, and coordinates, and numbers and basically all the information needed to recreate a person, you could do it, but you would only get a recreation of one fixed point in a differential system. Also, that recreation, if allowed to continue working, will not mimic the 'parent' system, but "do it's own thing", because of the stochastic nature of elements within the system.

Awesome, E.F. The post-modernist will say to me, 'There is no Truth, only my truth, and your truth, and hers. There is no way for us to have had the same experiences and thoughts, therefore we are all separated into our independent spheres of truth.' How odd it is then, that the post-modernist will in the next sentence say, 'But, Q, you *must* agree with me that what I have said is true!' Silly post-modernist!

If two things are indistinguisably different in every possible way, then by difintion they are equivalent and they are the same. A vector, or any mathematical structure is not a 'thing out there somewhere'. My vector description is not some incomplete low-resolution description of that 'thing out there somewhere'. I didn't see its projection in my mind and write down an incomplete description with invented notation. If I did, then my vector is not that thing out there, but something simpler and is different. If a mathematical structure is more complex then the notation used to describe it, then the description is incomplete and the description is not the same as the mathematical structure it is incompletely describing. However two different compelte descriptions of the same structure are equivalent just with different notation. If a human can be completely emulated on a computer, and the emulation is indistinguisably different than the real thing, then they are equal. There would be no value in a 'thing out there somewhere' that is projecting into your mind+body (like a soul) since it is no different than the emulation. You could even argue that the emulation incldues the 'soul' components. Don't feel bad if that is indeed true though, because then that means you are descrete, quantifiable, deterministic, and permanent. Also, you have the universe as your playground because information cannot be created or destroyed.

That's about the most flawed logical argument I have ever heard from a mathematician. The fact that he cannot imagine something, or that there is chance for something not being possible is not a proof that it is not possible. Humans are essentially incredibly complex mechanical clockworks. You need quantum mechanics to explain how that clockwork works on its lowest levels but there is nothing that is not principally describable by mathematics on any level of it. The only barrier that prevents us from simulating real human on a computer is complexity. That's also the main reason why we will probably never simulate a human on computer. Although it would be so much fun to have a simulation of a human in our future supercomputer and to listen to him telling us that he cannot be described by mathematics and that his irrationality is a proof for that.

He is not trying to say that all things cannot be represented mathematically or logically. The key word there is represent. We can represent anything we want to through this elegant and wonderful system. But at some point our logical arguments must begin with some postulate, we must assume something and accept some rules before we can build any truth. Our existence is so completely limited by our senses and the capabilities of our minds, but the reality in which we exist does not have to follow any rules that we may set or follow. We perceive reality through our senses and logical reasoning, but the objective reality that we perceive is not limited by our brains, societies, and senses; it can behave in any way it wants to. In fact, it is most likely that the objective reality that we share is nothing like we see it, and far beyond our understanding. Our notion of reality is only a collective representation built on our senses, reasoning, and collective intelligence.

you are not a computer, but still you are going to absolutely obey fundamental physics laws. all matter from which you consist obeys this laws. so you are a machine in the same sence as any universe object is a machine. if we suppose that there is no "magic" in universe, then we _must_ conclude, that we are just turing machines, but working in a very complicated environment.

"there is something else" ... or something missing. "you" is an illusion, and the only characteristic feature of this illusion is that it belongs to you. it is neither good nor bad -- we can work with this, actually this pure relation of identity is already a very big thing -- do not try to complicate and obscure it.

Maybe your body is just a very good representation of your true self, which make you believe that you could never be a machine (or something different) ! :)

Your intelligence is much deeper than Ray Kurzweil's. Thank you for sharing your insights with the public.

people who smile forcibly and patronisingly after making their point are not to be taken too seriously

You can recreate the feeling of a loving god being with you with magic mushrooms and blissful love with ecstacy - doesn't this point towards all these feelings and emotions just being chemical reactions?

I would like to remind the comment section that certain phenomena of reality have the property of non-computability, e.g., the halting problem.

To cut a long story short, what this guy is trying trying to say is that quantifying something and describing are 2 different things to which I agree. I just don't really see the conection of this argument with the free will argument.

so many keyboard warriors and philosophers in these comments. Frenkels point isn't rational in itself so trying to disprove it rationally is pointless. just agree to disagree and move on

Just like saying logic is illogical because why should it be attempted in the first place. But all the while you have used a logical process to get to that conclusion!

Since physics is completely mathematically understood, is he secretly going metaphysical on our asses?

Uhh, Brady this is not going to convince CGP Grey that we have free will, as it doesn't me. He's talking beside the point if we discuss Free Will, but otherwise it's an interesting discussion of representation in general.

The Basis Key of the Universe is “ X = X “ ~by DLV5 im found 2022

I think he is "self-referencing" the term rationality which rationally is incorrect. Help me show this fact.

It seems to me that he is making an argument for an infinite regress of creations. Creation is not a predicate for creation, IMO.

3:00 Brady asks the perfect question and is totally right

For once i hear someone telling the hard Truth and that has some credibility that goes with it. Too bad that those crazy people not getting what a "Human" is are in control.

Thank You! I am human too! And I have a soul and no one can convince me otherwise!

Even though we understand how to simulate the underlying neurology to the level of animal intelligence, it seems many are still stuck in the Cartesian Theater.

those android nowadays are sure good... he is even convinced he is human :D

Good questions Brady!

I think he is just trying to say in a long 10 minutes that he believes in souls.

I must say that I do love you my friend. I've been contemplating on an existential model, that really bugs the hell out of me, and i knew when i saw the "naive" but still scary conclusions of the model, and actually the only thing that helped so far was gödels incompleteness theorem as a last backup not to let the curiosity take overhand. :P Its hard to describe but I've been waiting since february for an existential relief from it, and i cannot say that I have complete relief now but its way way better. :P The perspective is from an imagined "beyond life"Basically as a consciousness you cant really tell where life starts and ends, from the experience reference of time, if you will, we can say that we have a "story", a "life" and the only things that i could find was just myself, and everyone else, in an environment, in "time". Everything therefore has to happen "in time" wether its a conclusion, love, happiness, etcetera, tragedies, and so on. My thoughts, my language, my everything, my setting, my place where i live, the time that i live in. HAS in one sense or another to come from reality over time. Therefore, where, from that perspective, lies free will, really? If i view myself as a personality shaped by dna, upbringing, my reactions to events, is it then likely, that this exact universe has existed forever, and its just from experience point of view a loop? And this realization in itself would in that case be a nightmare of a life :P Then it boils down to a complete case of Sysifos. And the definition of "you live only once" has a completely different meaning, I do NOT like that idea and would like to find it completely irrational, but at the same time the "possibility" of it beeing the case scares me to this day. I NEED HELP! :P

Pfft show me a computer that understands Monty Python.

This video led me to re-read my notes from undergraduate philosophy, which reminded me why I love philosophy so much. Thanks, Numberphile!

Those who make idols shall be like unto them. (Ps. 115:8). Most contemporary physicists and mathematicians are perfectly comfortable with this transformation. It is rare to come across a "science type" person like Prof. Frenkel who has the wisdom and, dare I say, the humanity to resist.

I feel like this is a nonsensical debate. Most philosophical problems arise from misunderstandings of the logic of language (according to Wittgenstein) and this seems to be one of them.

When he said "glory to mathematics" I really wanted to hear "glory to Arstotzka!

I really enjoyed this video. I hope we can finish his complete argument on a later date.

The thing is _we can predict human behaviour._ It does follow certain rules. It is predictable (to the point of uncertainty outweighs certainty). He sounds like a creationist...

You don't need a degree in philosophy or neuroscience to make an educated statement about the nature of the human experience, all the credibility you need is being a human who lives the human experience with an open mind, and this guy is that. Just listen to what he has to say, let it in, question it and your thoughts on it, and if it isn't reigning true for you then don't worry about it. Doesn't mean it's less true for him, and we can still try to gain the wisdom he's found from trying to meld our perspective with his, even for a moment. Don't let the businesses called universities, as wonderful as they've been for humanity throughout history, be what dictate what thoughts are 'worthwhile' and what thoughts should be ignored, they should all be listened to.

No disrespect intended to the professor but when a mathematician treads into the field of philosophy he should probably do some serious research first. If we assume that the universe is deterministic (which is at least a commonly, if not universally, held position in physics), and that deterministic systems can, in principle at least, be described and replicated using mathematics and physical systems, then it is certainly valid to completely describe ANY behaviour or function of the mind in terms of mathematical models. Always assuming you are not a dualist of course :) I'm afraid I'm not buying his guarantees.

I got the point of video. Math is just simplified representation of reality and something comlecated like human or love can't be represented by it. Belief(not religious) is starting point to proof. If someone don't believe in something than he will not proof it. More likely that man will attempt to disproove.

"Ceci n'est pas une pipe."

None of the ai is really ai

I think that what Ed failed to say- but certainly implied- is that any mathematical system that represents a thing (as with his vector example) still requires a set of coordinates to be imposed upon it.

This topic is really exciting.

I never got past Linear Algebra II course. This must be Linear Algebra MMMCCXXI.

Excellent discussion, thank you for sharing this extra footage! (guy who just watched the old Zeno's Paradox video voice): I am reminded of the other old Numberphile video with Dr James Grime about Zeno's Paradox and pondering how Achilles ever catches up to the tortoise, or how James's hands will ever meet each other and clap, all while generously peppering in repeated footage of James's hands clapping. It's not exactly the same discussion... but I think it is part of the difference between making the math look This way or Another way, vs the reality of actually clapping one's hands.

thanks for uploading this Brady. I am impressed with how relevant your questioning was, being how vague his topic is.

It's nice to hear that there are others which share a love for the logical and mechanical, but can still embrace the 'warm & fluffy' perspective of existence

he is right, there are things that cannot be described mathematically. Qualia is one of them. And all our lives are build on qualia.

I love that guy and his eastern european accent :)

he convinced me this makes me so mad in a certain way

What he's saying means nothing. He doesn't seem to have any understanding of neuroscience, psychology, or the theory of computation. His points mostly come down to an emotional appeal and a few vague philosophical generalizations about what it means to "represent" something.

Prof Edward Frenkel is making some very dubious arguments here. I think this is more about him arguing from personal incredulity than anything else. He talks about emotions being indescribable with numbers but the same is true about chemistry. Emotions are also indescribable with chemistry. Yet, here we are, beings constructed out of chemistry with emotions. This same kinds of arguments have been mounted against evolution. Creationists claiming that evolution could never produce an eye for instance. All because the person making the argument cannot imagine how it is possible. At (7:57) He says: "You thrust yourself to this rational thing and say there is nothing more. I have to say this is irrational." This however is a straw man. Who says this? No one I'm familiar with. It's not merely irrational it is just plain false to believe there is no irrationality. In fact, people who believe in using rationality are pointing out that others are being irrational in inappropriate situations. How can the professor claim that such people believe there is nothing more than rationality when they are pointing out it's existence in the world? I don't know any rationalist who thinks they are attracted to someone else or have subjective tastes purely on rational grounds. I also think a whole lot of equivocation is being done here with the words rational and irrational. He seems to think that rational means "provable" for instance. However rationalist don't use this as the definition. They don't think one proves scientific theories for example. The tend to fall into various camps that all understand certain assumptions are being made in science which can't be proved. That's true whether they are followers of the philosophy of science proposed by Popper/Bartley or the more empiricist types who go with Bayes. In fact the vast majority of my high school and college science professors went out of their way to say that the scientific method isn't about "proving" in the mathematical sense. So I don't think he as properly supported his claim that a "Our belief in rationality, if I might say so, is so irrational." (7:42). I didn't even know this was a problem. Of course people are irrational. In fact, these fallacies he is using are irrational. I don't see why he sees such a big problem in producing irrational systems using numbers/math/algorithms. One would think it would be easy to produce an algorithm that uses induction in a way that it believes in things which are not true, and comes to it's conclusions by irrational means like this. Why couldn't some AI be produced which comes to the conclusion that Allah is the creator of the universe and that anyone who doesn't believe this deserves eternal punishment? I don't see any obstacle due to math. You could even just hardwire/hardcode such irrational bias and bigotry into the system. I've taken higher math courses in University and had to replicate Godel's Incompleteness Theorem so I have some understanding of it. I don't see how it supports this believe that we cannot build some artificial being that exhibits free will. I don't think free will is incompatible with determinism in the first place. I think free will needs the cause and effect to exist itself, for standard compatibilist reasons. I don't see free will requiring any magic. You would be building a system that can do things like model the environment, learn, predict future events, make decisions (including moral ones), etc. Free will is the ability to do these thing in order to the take actions which generate a future which is different than otherwise predicted. He also mentioned emotions, etc. but these feelings might be emergent properties. Vitalists for a very long time believed there was some extra magic involved with life that could not be explained by physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Yet we now have Darwin's theory (and others) which account for this "living essence" in terms of replication, evolved self interest, etc. Why not the same with things like emotion and qualia?

"I am not a number, I am a free man!" The new No. 2: "Ahh aha ha ha ha..."

please the godel one.

so maths allow us to make representation of things, but those representations are not those things, and never will be...

It's sad (not sad, of course I'm exagerating) that some mathematicians don't use the same rigor and logic when talking about "philosophy" as when doing maths...

Do the Godel Theorem!

Thank you so much.

Brady. How would you describe the joy of seeing a child smile using numbers? You could take a picture of her smiling and express that picture as a bunch of pixels. But that's not the FEELING that you get when you earn that smile from her. Dr. Frenkel is beyond right on all of this. The extent to which we err in our modern culture about these things is practically pathological.